This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Hello! I'm working on the Runic alphabet article, and I'd love to know the adjective form of Dalarna. Should I write "Dalaran runes" or "Dalarna runes" or "Runes from Dalarna" or "Dalecarlian runes" or something else entirely?

I'd like to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and use the modern preferred form. I just don't know what that is! :-) Thank you for any advice you may have. emk 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "Dalecarlian runes". Dalecarlia is still a standard form in English , at least for historically interested. But "runes of Dalarna ", "runes from Dalarna", etc , can't be wrong either. I don't think there is a modern preferred form for the Swedish provinces; if you have seen a particular form being used in scholarly literature related to the subject, you could simply use it. / Fred-Chess 13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish province articles were moved from Latin to Swedish names in May/June, e.g Ostrogothia --> Östergötland. If you see Latin provincial names, you are encouraged to change them, except in the case of Scania where both Skåne and Scania are OK forms. Arguments or comments can be presented at Talk:Skåne.

So I'm inclined to go with "runes from Dalarna" or even "Dalarna runes". But if people feel that Dalecarlian is the best adjective (even when we're using Dalarna as the noun), I'm happy to go with that. Many thanks for your prompt advice! :-) emk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalecarlia is not as markedly used in the English language as Scania is, I would think this is because Scania has been in active use in the English language. Most other provinces are rarely refered to and have to be re-introduced, when the Swedish name has become the standard form. "Dalecarlia" is however in some use so it's not wrong, although Dalarna is probable more commons. Again, I'd say it depends on what the established practice in the particular field is -- a historian would probably be inclinded to Dalecarlia, while a Swedish native would use Dalarna. I don't know what literature you are using when writing about the Runes, but I would suggest you use the same term they are using. / Fred-Chess 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I learned Swedish as a second language, I strongly prefer to call provinces by their local names. Typical English texts about Sweden avoid using the Latinized names as nouns: I seldom see American authors call Dalarna, Skåne, or Västergötland by any names but those.

To the best of my knowledge, only two Latinized provincial adjectives ("Dalecarlian" and "Scanian") are well established in English. I have nothing against those words, although a paraphrase with the Swedish name may sound better in some contexts. ISNorden 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The local name of Dalecarlia is Dalir (often the dative Dalum is used as well), not "Dalarna" which is the standard Swedish form. I would prefer Dalecarlia (n.) and Dalecarlian (adj.) in an English speaking article. // Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

No it's not. That's some obscure village dialect, and there's countless of those and some are completely incomprehensible, like Älvdalska which should be considered a language of it's own. Dalir and Dalum have no meaning in Dalarna, except maybe for a few elderly people in a certain limited geographical region. // Lucia 11:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I was referring to the genuine proper Dalecarlian dialects, i.e. "äkta dalmål" in Swedish. In the other parts of Dalecarlia (in "Improper Dalecarlia"), people of course have non-Dalecarlian names for the region, perhaps Dalane or whatever they might say in genuine dialect.

Many of our really good sources are in Swedish! :-) A Google test seems to strongly prefer "Dalecarlian runes", though:

"Dalecarlian runes": 893

"Dalrunes": 141 (mostly Wikipedia clones)

"Dalarna runes": 3

"Dalarnan runes": 0 (not counting the article in question)

On the other hand, Category:Runestones shows a heavy preference for Swedish province names, so it looks like we'll be writing something like "The Dalecarlian runes come from the Swedish province of Dalarna", which needlessly obscures the connection. Let me think about this. :-)

In Swedish, when something is from or of Dalarna it can be named Dala-somehing. Example: "Dala Horse".

So "Dala Runes" would also be correct.

The form "Dala" is an old Swedish genitive plural form, and it can only be used in a Swedish speaking context. (Well, it would be "Dala-" in Icelandic and Faroese as well.) // Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Lars Bäckman may well come from Dalarna; he may well be notable to Swedes (and a few foreigners interested in Scandinavian food). But he didn't inspire the Swedish chef, according to Muppet Show writer Jerry Juhl. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Juhl appears to have not had the complete picture. Read:

After some time [after the show], Kuprik was contacted by Jim Henderson who wondered if he could sign a release for the recorded performance. The chef was payed 80 dollars for the material, but little did he know what it was to be used for.

Jim looked at the tape and transformed the characteristics of Lars to one of his puppets. And so, the Swedish chef was born.

It is evident that Jerry Juhl didn't know the full story, reading the link you provided Juhl said something like "Jim Henson didn't mention it and he would have it was true" which only reflects on Juhl's lack of knowledge.

Secondly, I was not referring to how notable Jerry Juhl is, but how notable Lars Bäckman is and whether he should be counted among "notable people from Dalarna"?!

User:Lordmetroid inserted the tag "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Dalarna county." into the article about the province of Dalarna. But province=landskap and county=län in the system of swedish administration is not the same, as you surely know as a native speaker of Swedish. So it doesn't make sence to mix the articles about the historical landskap and the modern administrative unit län, even if in the case of Daralna the province "has virtually the same boundaries as the corresponding" county, as all the articles about provinces and counties are linked.

I don't really know what is meant by "virtually" here. Dalarna, just as Blekinge and Gotland (but no other provinces [1]) is exactly geographically identical to its county. However, that's certainly not a good reason to merge the articles. They might be about the same area, but just as you point out, they're about very different concepts. As Lordmetroid now seems to agree, I will simply remove the tag. -- Jao 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They are different, the top right "ear" on the map is part of the landskap, but not the län (I might recall this backwards, but either way, that "ear" is what differs). It's not like anyone lives there, so it's not an issue of huge importance, though.212.85.68.44 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should have read the article first, as the "virtually" is defined clearly. It seems that Dalarna's County Council and Statistics Sweden disagree on the borders of Dalarna. I just sent an inquiry to the former asking for an explanation of this. -- Jao 08:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I should update about this. I had simply missed a footnote at the bottom of the cited Statistics Sweden page, saying that split parishes had not been taken into account. Since then, that page has been updated to show the correct numbers even in such cases. As it turns out, of Dalarna's 276,000 inhabitants, 329 live in Gävleborg County, 176 in Västmanland County, 37 in Värmland County, and 5 Dalecarlians probably feel very special for living in Örebro County. The other way around, Dalarna County includes 204 people in Västmanland, 7 in Härjedalen, 5 in Hälsingland and 2 in Gästrikland. All numbers from 2006. -- Jao 12:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They're the same thing, and that article is smaller. Even if there are subtle differences in boundary (which can be noted), the province and the county are almost identical things. The physical realities and histories are shared. LokiClock (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No. They are two different entities. Dalarna (landskapet Dalarna) is a historical province without any administrative or politcal significance. Dalarna county (Dalarnas län) is a presentday administrative subdivision of Sweden under a governor (landshövding). In the case of Gotland there are even three different entities (a province, a county and a municipality) all with the same territory, but with three different articles.--Muniswede (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove a merge template until there is a consensus. The point of them is to raise awareness with other editors so they can have their say. The difference between a county, historical province, and administrative subdivision is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this particular historical province needs a separate article from the county with the same name and mostly the same territory. Consider the article for China. China itself has a much more volatile territorial, political, and historical definition, but that doesn't mean every possible way you can cut up the country needs its own article. When people read about the county they should learn about its history in the same place. LokiClock (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that there could ever be a consensus for a merger. Everybody in Sweden knows that landskap and län are two quite different concepts which should not be messed up. There are 25 landskap (historical or traditional provinces) and there are 21 län (administrative provinces, normally translated as "counties" in English). Sometimes they have the same name (12 cases). But only in two cases they have the same boundaries (Blekinge - Blekinge County and Gotland - Gotland County. In this case Dalarna County is not congruent with Dalarna. Parts of Dalarna are in other counties, but Dalarna County also includes parts of other provinces. Even if the differences in some cases are small it is much better not to mix up the things! --Muniswede (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dalarna → Dalecarlia — The Swedish name is a phonetic impediment to English readers, especially in reading aloud, and this English exonym has been widely used in English literature for centuries (see references in lede). SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exonyms are seldom used for Swedish provinces. Scania (Skåne) is the most notable exception. Dalecarlia for Dalarna is also possible. But I think nowadays Dalarna is more common. Blechingia, Ostrogothia and such things are totally out of use.--Muniswede (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, seldom used in English or Swenglish by Swedish writers (often information lobbyists) in cases such as this one. Used however by anyone (non-Swedish) who wants it to be practically possible to pronounce these names when reading English texts to the blind, to children et al. Any and all efforts to alleviate the phonetic impediments caused by forcing foreign name formats on the readers of other languages should be appreciated and supported. That's why we have exonyms, which are our only effective tools for this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I can see no phonetic impediment at all... Am I missing something? Also if the current title is more common, then it should stay as it is. No vote as yet but obviously I'm skeptical. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you see "no phonetic impediment at all" you obviously know Swedish. The ease of pronouncing the one name in English, as opposed to the other, would be obvious to anybody else I think. No one who does not know Swedish knows how to pronoubce Dalarna. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I know no Swedish, and have no problem pronouncing it, I expect very badly so far as a Swedish speaker is concerned, but this is English Wikipedia. But agree pronunciation can be very tricky, my French friends have great trouble pronouncing my surname Alder, and I have never grasped why. Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OpposeThis English exonym is actually a latin exonym and is as much a phonetic impediment to English readers as the Swedish name. While it may have been more commonly used in English 100 years ago, Dalarna is more commonly used today. We base our choice in Wikipedia on what is common today, not on what was common for our great, great grandparents. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Google [2][3] gets more than ten times the hits for the existing name. Discussion above reveals that the move proposal is based on an obsolete linguistic POV; No evidence in terms of WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Andrewa evidence of usage (what the policy WP:UE actually demands, not bare assertion). The phonetics "argument" is completely lacking in substance - we don't use a less common term that may be "difficult" to pronounce (Zzyzx, Szczecin), and the fact that Dalarna is more "difficult" that Dalecarlia is not based in any evidence whatsoever. Knepflerle (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one retract a move request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably no need to. As this amounts to a request from the nominator to close early, any uninvolved admin (or even an uninvolved non-admin familiar with the procedures) can now close it for you. I don't think I should as I'm involved. It will happen! Thanks for your contributions, and please continue to be bold. Andrewa (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

To have a section on the place's heraldry, complete with blazon, yet without emblazoning it, is, to me, illogical and not at all helpful. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying, I'm afraid - I don't know that much about heraldry. The section describes the arms and there it is at the top of the infobox, including all the details in the description. Can you explain a bit more clearly what we're lacking? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)